Scattering from impedance gratings and surface wave formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scattering problem of acoustic plane waves from comb-like impedance gratings on a rigid surface has been investigated in this paper. A rigorous analytic approach for homogeneous plane-wave incidence is presented based on the periodicity of the grating structure, in which the problem was solved as a mixed boundary value problem and the scattered field was represented by the tangent velocity difference across a partition wall of the grating. A singular integral equation has been derived for the tangent velocity difference, which can directly be solved with the Gauss-Chebyshev procedure. The resulting solution consists of a series of Bloch-Floquet waves (plane bulk wave and surface wave modes) with explicit expressions for the expansion coefficients. When the grating period is much less than the incident wavelength (ka << 1), the grating structure is equivalent to a plane impedance surface and no surface waves can be excited with homogeneous plane-wave incidence. When the grating period is comparable to the incident wavelength, resonance phenomena are predicted under certain conditions and surface waves can form, even with homogeneous plane-wave incidence. The dispersion relation for surface waves has also been examined. The impedance effects of the grating on the reflection and diffraction waves as well as on the dispersion and formation of surface waves have been studied, with the acoustically hard grating being the special case of the general impedance grating.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".